Memory Beta:Votes for approval of supplemental images
Vanguard emblem and Katie Sackoff as Vale Two images have come up recently on the Trek BBS that I thought we should consider using, pending permission of the artists of course. The Vanguard emblem was created by Vanguard series editor Marco Palmieriand refined by designer Masao Okazaki, and can be seen here... This Katee Sackoff as Christine Vale pic was created by a TrekBBS user named Starfury and can be seen here... I like this one, especially given our community's previous, unsuccessful efforts at a Vale image. We can vote while I try to obtain creator permission. :Yes on the Vanguard emblem, as it was created by the same two people responsible for the design of Starbase 47 and the USS Sagitarrius. :No on Vale, as it is an unlicensed piece of fanwork, and also because it uses the image of a real-life person who has no actual connection to Trek. --Seventy 01:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) ::Then what about our image of President Eisenhower as Min Zife? We don't disallow images just because they are fanwork if they are good work. This forum was created to separate the good from the bad. Many of the authors who have written Vale have stated on the Trek BBS that Sackoff would be the perfect choice for Vale. --Turtletrekker 02:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC) :::Then what about our image of President Eisenhower as Min Zife? -- Uh... what about it? I voted against that abomination, too, and would love nothing more than to see it deleted ASAP. So, what is your point? --Seventy 04:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Then maybe we should vote on the Zife image again because including one but not the other is hypocrisy of massive Memory Alpha proportions. It's an artists interpretation, and this wiki used to be flexable enough to include them. Sadly this wiki is resembling the ridiculously ridgid MA more each and every day which can only serve to this wiki's detriment. Stuff like this is the reason I don't go to MA and may soon be the reason I abandon this place as well. --Turtletrekker 14:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC) :Yes, to the Vanguard image, but no to Sackhoff. I would rather wait to see Vale on a Titan cover (it'll happen sometime), but since Sackhoff is "endorsed" by Marco and the others, I could accept it. However, I don't feel this image cuts it. If we want a Sackhoff-as-Vale image, I can design one specifically for the wiki, using a real-screencap uniform, rather than that Poser-created body. Just say the word. --TimPendragon 06:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC) :Yes to the Vanguard insignia since it originated from the creators of the concept. No on Sackhoff as Christine Vale as the image currently exists. I think we can do better than a photo head on a CGI body. That said, I'm not thrilled with the idea of using Sackhoff's likeness. At first glance, the image looked like Starbuck in a Starfleet uniform whereas the Min Zife image did not immediately ring out and scream Dwight Eisenhower to me. Perhaps that's the caveat of makeup. Were Vale a Tellarite, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. I know Marco et al. have all said Sackhoff would be a perfect choice for Christine Vale, but there has to be someone else who fits the bill and isn't the star of another popular sci-fi show.--Julianbaischir 15:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC) :Definitely Yes for the Vanguard insignia, and after properly studying the proposed image of Christine Vale, I would say a provisional Yes for that image, until an image becomes available from a novel cover (or hopefully a comic). Having pictures in an article definitely enhances the article.--The Doctor 15:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC) :Yes to both, I really like the Vanguard emblem and I think the fact that Marco created makes it pretty much official. As for the Vale pick, I've always been a big fan of the idea of Katee Sackoff being Chris, and since this is the best we've gotten so far, I say we use it. At least until Vale appears on a Titan cover, which probably won't be for at least a year or two, and I'm sorry but I really want to see some sort of image for Vale till then. --JDB Well, KRAD now says over at TrekBBS: "I never pictured Amanda Tapping for Vale, but I can't think of a good reason why not, sooooo....." So, someone tell me why we should use a Sackoff-as-Vale image here instead of a Tapping-as-Vale pic? --Seventy 02:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :Why not have both? Why would we want to limit creativity? This database isn't about creating one strict interpretation of what Trek ought or ought not to be -- which is why we accept info from all licensed sources, even contradictory ones! I don't see why we can't have multiple visual interpretations of a character in lieu of an official image of the character from a book. Yes to the Vanguard insignia and Yes to the Sackoff picture. -- Sci 03:54 15 OCT 2006 UTC ::Why would we want to limit creativity? Well, if this is a site for unlimited creativity, let's lift the restriction on non-licensed sources. Let's just make up any shit we want and throw it in wherever we please, and to hell with the stated purpose of the wiki! Seriously, how do you justify disallowing textual information from unlicensed stories, and allowing unlicensed images? ::And, not for nothing... but have you looked at the Christine Vale article recently? It stops dead at Taking Wing, with no effort to integrate any additional information from the last two Titan novels. (And, if you check the history log, you'll see we've gone through an entire other image debate with still no substantive additions to the article!) Right now, anyone coming to this wiki looking for established information on Vale will see that, and conclude this site is not very thorough. Add a picture of Katee Sackoff's head on a Starfleet uniform, and anyone coming for information will conclude this wiki is not very serious. ::The only reason I'm here is because I want a serious site. Look at my contribution log, look at how many new articles I have to my credit. I want an informational site that I, as a Trek Lit fan, can use and refer to like I do the ST Encyclopedia and "Memory Alpha", and I'm willing to put the effort of combing through old books in order to create it. And I get very discouraged when I see my fellow contributors putting more passion into arguing for Photoshop images, and for "expressing creativity". If that's going to be the purpose of the site, then why should I even bother anymore? --Seventy 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :::I for one don't know why you think that there's some distinction between being a serious resource and encouraging creativity. :::Secondly, we justify not including info from non-licensed sources while including nonlicensed fan images because we only allow fan images of subjects from licensed works, and, further, because we do not allow all of them but only those approved of on a case-by-case basis, and, on top of that, because we delete said images when a licensed image becomes available. Just look at the Gorn Hegemony image deletion that's being undertaken. :::Thirdly, if you're that dissatisfied with the Christine Vale article proper, then I suggest that you add to it! I haven't expanded it because the character doesn't interest me, because I have limited time with which to contribute, and because I'm more interested in other subjects, but by all means, this is a team effort! Why do I take the time to argue over images like these if I don't take the time to work on the articles themselves? Because I don't want to see this wiki turn restrictive like Memory Alpha! :::And, yes, Seventy, thank you very much for all of your contributions -- you are making this a better wiki. But this wiki isn't about restricting creativity -- it's about providing information on licensed work subjects and canonical subjects. We've chosen to interpret that as also providing supplemental, fan-created images of licensed works' subjects until such time as licensed images become available because including more graphical elements makes the wiki a more informative, more user-friendly database. And since differences of interpretation are a major component of reading literary works, it becomes perfectly appropriate for there to even be multiple supplemental images reflecting the different interpretations of the works that are out there. :::Please, let's not turn into an incredibly strict Memory Alpha wannabe. Let's be open and creative and informative and comprehensive. -- Sci 19:44 15 OCT 2006 UTC :::: Bravo, Sci. --Turtletrekker 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :Maybe because we actually have '' a Sackoff pic, and incidently, permission from the artist, who is thrilled at the prospect of his/her pic being used here, and has expressed interest in helping us out further. ::Arguments about creativity aside, I'm of the opinion that people coming through the site who aren't privy to the discussions about fantasy casting on TrekBBS would view a picture of Sackhoff (or Tapping) in a Starfleet uniform as "cheesy." Especially if it's a Poser-created CGI uniform as that picture is. No offense to the artist, it's a good image, but it doesn't look "realistic" enough. ''If everyone wants an image of Sackhoff, then let's create one specifically for the wiki, based on actual screencaps. Ultimately, though, I'm against the idea of a Vale image altogether until we get one on a novel cover. I also hate the Eisenhower-Zife image. Had I been here when that went up, I'd have voted against it. --TimPendragon 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC) A bit late here but... the Vanguard emblem vote is moot now, since we lack permission, as Turtletrekker notes below. As for the Sackoff-as-Vale pic, I'll give a qualified "no". Even before getting into the other issues involved, that particlular shot of Sackoff is simply too iconographic of her as Kara Thrace/Starbuck (it's from a Galactica publicity shot, am I correct?). That's probably one of the biggest technical barriers to creating such images: the highest-resolution originals to work from are usually too well-known to be used here.--Emperorkalan 11:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Vanguard Emblem *'Yes' --Turtletrekker 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --Seventy 01:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --TimPendragon 06:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --The Doctor 06:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --Julianbaischir 14:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --JDB *'Yes' --Sci 03:54 15 OCT 2006 UTC It's a shame that we have a image that everybody agrees on, but not the permission of the creator. Marco Palmieri finally e-mailed me back and wrote the following... :The Vanguard emblem is purely tentative at this point, so I think it would be counterproductive to put something on Memory Beta that may never become official within the context of the Vanguard novels. Thanks for the interest, though. Oh, well. --Turtletrekker 00:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Katie Sackoff as Vale *'Yes' --Turtletrekker 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'No' --Seventy 01:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'No' --TimPendragon 06:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --The Doctor 06:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'No' --Julianbaischir 14:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) *'Yes' --JDB *'Yes'--Sci 03:54 15 OCT 2006 UTC *'No'--8of5 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC) *'No'--Emperorkalan 11:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Starship Images Following the debarkle I made with images for the ''Larson''-class, I figured I should do this through the right channels this time. It would be nice to have images for several starship classes from the TOS era as featured in FASA or the Star Fleet Technical Manual. There are several CGI images for the ''Saladin''-class, ''Hermes''-class, the ''Federation''-class and the ''Loknar''-class on this page on Trekmania.net. So pending the correct permission from the images creator, should these images be included on the wiki? VOTES * Yes --The Doctor 21:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) * Yes - Conditionally -- 8of5 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC) DISCUSSION I'd say yes, but with only if there is not a licensed alternative. We are meant to be chronicling licensed sources, seems silly to outright ignore one just because we can find a prettier version elsewhere. -- 8of5 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Vale Image This image has just been uploaded, it isn't great quality, has text up one side, and the appearance of Vale is a controversial issue, still I thought I'd test it here before taking the deletion route, bit of variety. -- 8of5 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) VOTES * No --8of5 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) DeathTongue It has previously been noted that DeathTongue may be a reference to something that appeared in a comic strip, this was noted as background information and an image of the entire band is on the talk page. That is interesting and appropriate, I don't feel it so to take the logo from that comic and, without any indication from the author that there is any connection at all, allocate it to the trekverse band. It might be appropriate to move the whole band image into the main article within the background section, it seems wrong to make up any actually connection between the two. -- 8of5 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC) VOTES * Keep -- Data Noh 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC) * Keep --Turtletrekker 00:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC) * Keep --Emperorkalan 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC) DISCUSSION Since the comic strip reference is apparently deemed relevant enough to include in a footnote on the page itself, I figured the band logo from the strip (the only image that would be available) would be equally relevant. I don't really see this as any less accurate than the community-accepted fanon logos we use for various organizations (such as the FNS), unless there are copyright issues of which I am unaware (if there are, I'm up for immediately deleting this). -- Data Noh 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Thing is, we do have "any indication from the author" -- Dayton Ward's story annotations -- which is linked to directly from the "Almost... But Not Quite" article. I'm mystified as to why this is now suddenly the standard of image acceptability, since to the best of my knowledge, David Mack has never said Min Zife looks anything like Eisenhower. --Seventy 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC) :I refer the naysayers to Dayton Ward's Annotations. :"Page 261: "DeathTongue." A reference to a Sunday edition of the great "Bloom County" comic strip. "DeathTongue" was the name of a band that Bill the Cat and company formed, a precursor to the more mainstream "Billy and the Boingers." I have their first album up for auction on eBay." Data Noh: Well the difference is acknowledging where a name came from (as the annotations do) and saying they are one in the same is very different, if the band in the trekverse and Bill the Cats band are meant to be one in the same then fine, but that wasn't clear from the previous note, it was just random connection. And Seventy I quite agree, if I'd have been involved when alot of our supplimental images were suggested I'd have voted against. We dont need author approval, but we also shouldnt make unnesisary jumps, the annotations confirm the link, I accept that, but without that it was just two fictional bands that happened to share a name. -- 8of5 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Altered Harb Tanzer Image ]] The only official image ever released of novel character Harb Tanzer (top image) in comic form was colored wrong in two significant ways-- first, his hair in the novels is always described as being white, not brown. Second, his uniforms turtleneck and strap are the wrong departmental color. I started "fixing" the image, seeing if a more accurate rendition could be made. For the green of the turtlneck and strap, I extracted the color of McCoy's uniform found here. For the hair, I tried to "replace the dark brown with a darker grey and the lighter brown with white. I tried to keep the texture and style of the hair consistant with the original image, but that was the tricky part. The bottom image is what I came up with. I think that, if approved, the line about the coloring error that is currently there, should be replaced with something like, "The above image has been altered in order to portay a more accurate image of the character. For the image in it's original form click here. here." Votes *'Yes'--Turtletrekker 06:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'No' -- Data Noh 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'No' --Seventy 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'No' --8of5 15:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'No' --Emperorkalan 01:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Discussion I'm not familiar with this character, can you explain why the image should be changed to reflect how he is described in an appearance in a novel over how he actually appears in a comic? --8of5 06:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC) :In all of Diane Duane's novels, and he is in most of them, his "shock-white" hair is often described as his most noticable feature. I know comics back then didn't like to use a lot of white because the image on the other side of the old newsprint comic page would bleed through, so that may have been the source of the error. :As for the uniform, as Captain Mike pointed out in the article, Tanzer is always described as being under McCoy, in a sub-section of medical. Hence the green. --Turtletrekker 07:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) :ETA: I've actually found his hair described as "silver" in "The Wounded Sky" (Ch.2), "Spock's World" (Enterprise: one) , and "My Enemy, My Ally"(Ch.2) with a minimum of searching. I'm sure I remember the "shock-white" decription from somewhere. --Turtletrekker 07:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ::But this is how he appeared in the comic, if a character was described in books as having big ears and then had little ones in the comic would you want to magic them big? There was a discussion over at the Trek BBS recently over how one of the New Frontier characters had less red than described (in the novels) skin the Double Time, same issue? ::The character could have dyed his hair and had a go in another department for a few weeks? Who knows, but from the sounds of it this isn't much different than any other continuity issue, show both note differences. --8of5 07:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) :::I would be more in favor of only using the original licensed images, and noting any discrepancies. -- Data Noh 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ::::Yes that was what I meant actually, show the original, the both being the text decribing him differently, and note the differences. --8of5 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I find it fascinating that this topic would even be broached before there was even an effort at writing a halfway decent article for the character. When the explanatory sidenote for the complementary illustration is 3x longer than the actual entry, there's something very wrong. To hell with the pic, in either form. --Seventy 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) :Agreed, absolutely. --Vote Saxon 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ::I agree with the spirit of your comment, but not your tone, Seventy. The supplementary image is probably not going to be called for, but a simple "no" would have sufficed. -- Captain MKB 16:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC) No sweat off my behind, as I just did the image out of fun. Seventy, you take this place way too seriously if something as monumentaly insignificant as this gets you all hot and bothered. This is a wiki about a fictional universe. Furthermore, its about fictional aspects of a fictional universe. You know, none of get paid to do this. We do this for fun, and it quite frankly just really isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. Certainly it's not important enough to get even a little bit upset over. Bad attitudes like yours just bring the place down and discourages new contributers, and will only serve to be detrimental to the wiki in the long run. Remember, if you're not doing this for fun, then you need to get out into the real world more. That being said, this whole place isn't as fun as it used to be. Once upon a time, supplemental images were embraced instead just being rejected in a knee-jerk "no" reaction. It was a lot more open (But still with boundarys. What Vorta Expert tried to get away with would never have been tolerated) and open to speculations based on established facts. This place has truly gone from being under-moderated to having too many chefs stirring the soup. As for the length of the article, it will soon be in the upper 10% in length, as there is more than enough info about the character to make having a pic in the article worthwhile. As for why I didn't do so sooner, I saw that Captain Mike seemed to be writing up characters from My Enemy, My Ally, and I didn't want to step on any toes. Sheesh... --Turtletrekker 22:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC) :::I'm OK with the use of altered images (as long as they are identified as such). My objection is merely technical: the altered image shown is very washed out. It needs better masking so that only the areas to be altered are changed. So my "no" is for this particular image; if a better version is presented, I'm inclined to approve it.--Emperorkalan 02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC) ::::I'm fine with altering images if they are to show something otherwise unshowable, a mirror universe version of someone not seen onscreen for instance. But that is not the case here, this is a continuity error, I don't see how it's any different than an error in a text, note it's there but ultimately we have to accept that is how it is in licensed product, it is not our place to force things into one continuity. --8of5 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC) ::We should totally have a contributors' picnic or something. Happiness :o) -- Data Noh 02:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Statueofliberty.jpg I added this Statue of Liberty image, which was from the U.S Government National Park Service web site. The only image I could find of the statue from a licensed source that I have access to is from the Enterprise episode Storm Front where it's in the background of films showing the alternate timeline version of Hitler visiting New York City. As far as I know that's the only time the statue ever appears in a Trek related movie or TV offering. If there's one from a comic book that I don't have access to, I would hope someone could upload the image. Servo 15:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Votes *'No' --8of5 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC) *'Yes' --Servo 18:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC) *'Yes' -- Data Noh 20:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC) *'Yes' --Turtletrekker 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC) *'Yes' --Dr. John Smith 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Discussion If we have an in-universe shot I think we should use it, which we do Image:AdolfHitler1944.jpg, even if it is a fuzzy background shot. I feel supplemental images should only be used when there is absolutely no alternative. And don't forget to vote yourself Servo. --8of5 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC) :Agreed... speaking of, do we have a policy on "real-life" information? This is an example; the Statue of Liberty page includes some information on the statue that I would imagine was never addressed by any Trek source. -- Data Noh 20:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC) ::Might be one of those not written down ones, but yes we do, keep it to a bare mininium, what is assumed knowledge for whatever reference in-universe it does have. Servo has something of a passion for extranious real world info. --8of5 22:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Why not? Have fun! --Turtletrekker 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC) :Because there is a perfectly good image in-universe, already on the site no less. --8of5 22:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC) ::The Hitler pic? Perfectly good? Grainy and black-and-white? Sorry, I respectfully disagree. --Turtletrekker 23:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC) ::ETA: Furthermore, and this not the nerdie Trekkie in me talking but the sappy patriot, I intensely dis-like the association of Hitler and the Statue of Liberty. I find it... disturbing. I have no objection to the pic being on the page with the proper context given, but not as the main image. The statue means something to Americans and to have that man's image in pic that we use to depict the statue itself is just wrong. *steps down from soapbox* --Turtletrekker 00:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC) :::*rolls eyes and mutters something about patriotic americans* As you said in a post above yourself this is a fictional universe, and Hitler in front of the Statue of Liberty is part of that universe, and until someone finds an image in a comic or something, the only in-universe image of the statue. If it's really that important to you there could always be a second cropped version of the image without Hitler. --8of5 01:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC) ::Actually, nothing here is that important to me. Nothing here is truly important'' at all'', in any way. Important to us perhaps, but not in the grand scheme. Which is why I scratch my head over this need to only use licensed images for real world objects. It just doesn't matter. ::Anyway, I'm was just stating my opinion. I was under the impression that that was what "discussions" were for. You want to take another cheap pot-shot at my patriotism, you go right ahead. I may hate my "president" and what he's doing in Iraq (and everything else he is/isn't doing for that matter), but I'll always love my home. --Turtletrekker 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC) :::Ok in this case, given I'm arguing for an image as shown in the 20th century you might be right, in general though real world bits of earth to show what is usually 22nd 23rd or 24th century earth is all wrong to me. But meh, whatever, you've voted, I've voted, whatever wins wins. And of course you have every right to express your opinion just as I have mine, but this is not the place for such debate, whatever our political (or cultural) beliefs, they're irrelevant here. --8of5 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC) ::::I'm not especially bothered by the Hitler connotations myself, but I can easily imagine a lot of people who would be. Although it's not our job to take into account the real-universe connotations of the Trek universe, I think we would be well-advised to consider people's feelings. While an in-universe picture is preferable, the Hitler image isn't even from the primary "Trek" timeline, so its value is arguable. I say keep this picture, although be on the lookout for an in-universe one we can replace it with. -- Data Noh 02:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Unbelievable. Are you people really going to be this anal about a real-world photo of a real world monument? And, seeing as this is the non-canon wiki, and that the majority of the Statue of Liberty article is drawn from non-canon prose, I don't see the existance of a canon pic as a relevant point for or against this one. Frankly, if I had the choice, I would get the hell rid of all the damned pics altogether, but if we have to have them, I'd rather have aestetically-pleasing pics than fuzzy, blurry, zoomed-and-cropped canon pics. --Seventy 02:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC) :Well stick your yes vote on and if no one else bothers to vote it's in. --8of5 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Yeah, why not, let's go wild and have fun like the old days!!!!!!!! --Dr. John Smith 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC) :Wow. This actually has been fun. Not very productive, but... cleansing. --Turtletrekker 08:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Colorized IKS emblem I'd like opinions on wether we can (or should) use a colorized version of the Imperial Klingon States emblem. For the record: FASA only printed a B&W version (in The Triangle (book), of which the unmodified version shown is a direct scan. The never produced (nor specifically described) a color one. However, since it's a bit stark in a color medium, I made a colorized version based on the color sceme of the TOS Klingon emblem we have up (see, for example, Battle of Donatu V). The lightning/squigggly bolt uses one of the darker reds from our general Klingon Empire emblem. Is this within the bounds of acceptability here?--Emperorkalan 20:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC) :I'm definitely happy with the image and having one with color is definitely preferable. It's not as if you have changed anything about the symbol itself and the colors used have been used for the official Klingon trefoil design. --Dr. John Smith 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC) ::Hmm, that's very nice, but I'm not sure about the appropriateness, I could be swayed either way. --8of5 21:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC) :::I think the nearest example would be Image:Al-Rashid.jpg (the Presidential Transport), in that it merely interpolates within a well-established framework. It's not being sprung from whole cloth here -- it's just adding color to an actual FASA design. B&W was an appropriate choice for a printed page, but on a web page, next to all the blues and reds from the hyperlinked text, it seems oddly jarring. (and the whole point of such an illustration is to add "color" to the text, not throw you out of context by thinking "Yikes! That looks AWFUL!".) :::I'd insist on the TOS color scheme even if it weren't my own item because that's what FASA used whenever they printed a Klingon emblem in color. For me, the real question was how to handle the bolt, and lacking any clear markers I made a relatively conservative choice. It's also an item where we can clearly record its pedigree (unlike, say, the Starfleet Intelligence symbol we use), so we don't leave any room for confusion.--Emperorkalan 11:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Generally I am opposed to modifying perfectly acceptable images just to make them fit into what we like best, and to that end I will not vote in favour of this image. However, this is a reasonable sort of update so I won't vote against it either.--8of5 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Mirror B'Elanna images Image:Mirrortorres.JPG|color version Image:B'Elanna, Daughter of Miral (Mirror).jpg|Pencil version These two images were uploaded by TorresOmega593 on 2 July, but obviously being a new user he wasn't aware of the procedure for supplemental images. At any rate, the image is quite good and the only other alternative image of the B'Elanna (mirror) would be from the cover for Obsidian Alliances. However, if we do keep an image I would go for the color version. --Dr. John Smith 09:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC) :Could be worse, but could also be better, and as a cover image is available I think we should use that.--8of5 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Hey, thanks for the compliments. These images were uploaded by me, they are only sketches, the final one is not complete, but if you like, you can remove them until i have the final one complete then you can take a vote as to whether you want the Mirror Torres image kept or not. Thanks guys! Vote * Keep colored version, delete other. --Dr. John Smith 09:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) * Delete both versions --8of5 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) * Delete both --Seventy 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) * Delete both --Jdvelasc 17:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC) No Translator I made this to illustrate a scene in the novel Devil in the Sky based on the same sort of communications used by the Horta in The Devil in the Dark. --8of5 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Votes *'Yes'--8of5 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) *'Yes'--Jdvelasc 17:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Illumination of The Prodigal I made this to illustrate a scene in the novel Devil in the Sky, made from three screencaps, the starscape and DS9 from and the planetoid Vandor IV from We'll Always Have Paris. --8of5 02:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Votes *'Yes'--8of5 02:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC) *'Yes'--Jdvelasc 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Kobayashi Maru teaser cover User:JDB uploaded this cover, which as far as I can tell is the author's, presumably unofficial, teaser for the novel. I've emailed Andy Mangels to check for permission, so while we await that we should pass it through the supplemental images vote. I'm for keeping it as a stand in until an offical one is realeased and then either move it down to the information section or delete it. --8of5 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC) :Ok we have permision now, but we've been asked not to post the translation of the Romulan text (which I can't even find). --8of5 22:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Votes *'Yes'--8of5 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC) *'Yes'--Emperorkalan 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC) *'Yes'--Jdvelasc 00:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC) US ranks My renditions adapted from public domain insignia, many of these have been seen in canon or non-canon, the rest we can divine were used based on our knowledge of "real-life". -- Captain MKB 21:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC) :I voted yes, but that is on the assumption we actually need all or most of them, not a lot of point having them all about if we only need one or two. --8of5 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC) ::I know that 6 are relevant to canon from their use on MA. Many will be relevant to the known ranks of various 'real-world' figures mentioned in non-canon. Any provably not really usable on MB can be deleted i think. -- Captain MKB 22:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Votes *'Yes'--Captain MKB 21:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC) *'Yes'--8of5 21:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC) *'Yes'--Jdvelasc 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)